This case is before the Authority on an application for review filed by
the Petitioner (the Union) under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules
and Regulations. A representation election was conducted in which ballots were
cast both manually and by mail. Of the 35 valid votes counted, 17 were cast for
the Union and 15 were cast against exclusive recognition. The Activity
challenged three ballots, which were sufficient in number to affect the results
of the election. In addition, following the election, the Activity filed an
objection to the procedural conduct of the election.

Following an investigation of the objection and challenged ballots, the
Acting Regional Director (ARD) issued his Decision and Order on Objection and
Determinative Challenged Ballots. With respect to the Activity's objection to
the procedural conduct of the election, the ARD sustained the portion of the
Activity's objection that alleged that two employees who were absent from the
worksite on the day of the election because they were away on training were
improperly deprived of the opportunity to vote. With respect to the three
challenged ballots, the ARD sustained the challenge to the ballot of one
individual; and overruled the challenge to the ballots of the other two
individuals and ordered that their ballots be opened and counted and that a
revised tally of ballots be issued. The ARD stated that if the revised tally of
ballots revealed that the votes of the two employees who were away on training
on the day of the election would have been determinative of the outcome of the
election, then the election would be set aside and a new election held. The ARD
further stated that if the votes of those two employees would not have been
determinative of the outcome of the election, the appropriate certification,
based on the revised tally of ballots, would be issued.

The Union seeks review of the ARD's decision insofar as the ARD
sustained the portion of the Activity's objection to the procedural conduct of
the election and sustained the challenge to the ballot of one employee. The
Activity did not file an opposition to the application for review.

II. Order

We find that the Union has established that compelling reasons exist
for granting the application for review of the ARD's decision and order
pursuant to the provisions of section 2422.17 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations. In particular, we grant the application for review as to the
following issues: (1) Whether two employees who were absent from the worksite
on the day of the election because they were away on training were improperly
deprived of the opportunity to vote and, if so, whether the election should be
set aside; (2) Whether, noting the definition of "firefighter" under section
7103(a)(17) of the Statute, the individual whose ballot challenge was sustained
by the ARD is a supervisor of a unit which includes firefighters within the
meaning of section 7103(a)(10) of the Statute.

Accordingly, we grant the application for review of the ARD's decision
and order. In accordance with section 2422.17(g) of our Rules and Regulations,
the parties may, within 10 days after issuance of this Order, submit briefs on
the issues raised by the application for review. Briefs should be directed
to: